Attention Ferentz doubters

[seepig]

ok I stand corrected thanks Rawk...I'm too old to remember back that far. I believe my main point to be valid....once he lost Raveling's talent he did virtually nothing except barely make it in...win round 1 and always get bounced in round 2 or occassionally Rd. 3.

Having said that it was better than where we are today!

 

[seepig]

Who cares if they were tourney titles. IMO tourney titles mean more. Who cares if you have the best record during the regular season. They dont crown the NCAA champ b4 the tourney is played so why should the big10 title matter if it was won in the season or tourney?

Exactly MAC!

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Who cares if they were tourney titles. IMO tourney titles mean more. Who cares if you have the best record during the regular season.

Couldn't disagree with this more. I would take a regular season title over a BTT title any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

In my eyes, what you do over the course of 18 games from January-March is FAR more meaningful than a single weekend of basketball.

Alford's "Big Ten Titles" were nice, but most of his teams had a knack for underachieving all year long, only to start playing with a heartbeat in the BTT once the team was down to it's last chance to salvage the season.

If you take care of business during the regular season, you don't need to pull a BTT title out of your rear to make the NCAA Tournament. Conference tournament doesn't really matter if you have a good regular season - you will still get a high NCAA seed regardless of what you do in the BTT if you win the regular season title.

 

[urohawk]

My problem with KF...

is if you are going to run a program based on sound fundamentals, smash mouth football, and solid defense that is great. There are many ways to win football games.

But answer me these questions

1. How does a team make so many mental mistakes and be caught off guard so much (Arizona blocked punt, fake punt against Wisc, and onside kick against Minn). We are obviously not practicing new innovative offenses or defenses. This doesn't even mention terrible kickoff coverage for most of the year.

2. How does a team that is trying to run the football and dominate opponents on the ground end up with a 260 pound guard starting the last 4 games of the year when only two linemen (not more than any other team has injured during the course of the year) are injured? How does that happen to a school playing smash mouth football? Plus this isn't the first year that oline play has really let us down (2004, 2006, 2007 and a disappointing 2009 considering the talent level). KF needs to address his recruiting, development or decision making in who plays in the offensive line because major improvement is needed for more success in the future.

 

[HawkeyeTech]

To equate the accomplishments of Mr. Davis and KF is more than a bit of a stretch. A 7-5 year and a minor bowl game would be one of Mr. Davis's above average years. After his first year, you won't find top 10 finishes and anything better than an occasional Sweet 16. Ferentz took a bottom feeder, rebuilt it and has a number of top 10 finishes, big 10 championships and bowl victories. Some people are making the Mr. Davis era into a lot more than it really was. Very few people were against a change in basketball coaches; even less people would support a change in football coaches.

Mr. Davis had two losing seasons in 13 years at 11-16 and 12-16. Other than that his worst record was 21-12 which is 63.6% compared to the 58.3% that 7-5 equates to. His lifetime record is 65.7%, though just 54.3% in the Big 10. Kirk's overall is 60.7% and his Big 10 is 57% which includes just 3 wins in his first two seasons. Mr. Davis also won at least one NCAA tourney game 9 times. That's better than a minor bowl.


I love Ferentz, just had to retort to the Davis bashing as I loved him too. Well, maybe love is too strong a word, but you get my gist.

 

[Section136]

Who cares if they were tourney titles. IMO tourney titles mean more. Who cares if you have the best record during the regular season. They dont crown the NCAA champ b4 the tourney is played so why should the big10 title matter if it was won in the season or tourney?

Win the regular season crown and you dont have to win the conference tourney to make the NCAA's. Your record will take care of that.

I would rather have a team that consistently won games throughout the entire season than have a team that got hot for 4 days in early March to sneak their way into the big dance.

How many teams have won the big dance that also needed to win 4 games in 4 days to make the tourney? I would guess zero.

 

[HawkeyeTech]

Who cares if they were tourney titles. IMO tourney titles mean more. Who cares if you have the best record during the regular season. They dont crown the NCAA champ b4 the tourney is played so why should the big10 title matter if it was won in the season or tourney?

Big 10 tourney titles mean squat. One of the years Alford won it was when MSU and Illinios already knew they would be top seeds. Illinois lost to Indiana and MSU lost to Penn State in earlier rounds. They mailed it in in the Big 10 tourney allowing Iowa to beat PSU in the semis and a weak Indiana team in the final.

 

[Xerxes]

Yes, and nothing will change. KF and KOK aren't going anywhere. Iowa will go 7-5, 8-4, 9-3 and an occasional 10-2(once every 5 years or so go to a BCS game) and he will get $3 mil/year to do it. That's what we have. It will be ok for most and not for some.

Pretty much the best post I've read in a long time regarding KF.

I don't like paying that much money for 7-5/8-4 records with 4-4/5-3 B10 records but I'm concerned about the prospect of what a bad hire might do.

Basically I'd rather have a slightly above .500 B10 coach, like Kirk is, rather than chance going back to the "dark ages" (1960s & 70s) with a bad hire or not being able to attract a quality coach.

 

[hawkeyemark]

Pretty much the best post I've read in a long time regarding KF.

I don't like paying that much money for 7-5/8-4 records with 4-4/5-3 B10 records but I'm concerned about the prospect of what a bad hire might do.

Basically I'd rather have a slightly above .500 B10 coach, like Kirk is, rather than chance going back to the "dark ages" (1960s & 70s) with a bad hire or not being able to attract a quality coach.

This post stood out to me too. I can live with a slightly above average program that occasionally achieves something better than that. I think we've reached an interesting fork in the road because we pay Kirk an elite level salary and I don't think he will ever produce results that come with the expectations that go along with what we pay him.

Count me in the crowd that doesn't want Kirk Ferentz gone either. I would very much like him though to become more flexible and make some changes in his game day approach.

 

[Imlivingthedream]

Kirk is good, not a great coach.

 

[ArizonaHawkeye88]

I like Kirk, but I wish he would change a little bit. Auburn coach just got a hail Mary TD at the end of the first half. Kirk would have taken a knee. I wish he was just a little more aggressive.